Topic
Majority opinion
About: Majority opinion is a research topic. Over the lifetime, 4107 publications have been published within this topic receiving 54845 citations. The topic is also known as: opinion of the court.
Papers published on a yearly basis
Papers
More filters
TL;DR: This article found that a majority on the Court, and some dissenters, violated their previously established realms of legitimate linguistic possibilities to make their arguments, and that the majority's rhetorical inconsistencies with their past rulings, particularly those immediately preceding Bush v. Gore, prevented consensus and attempted to rationalize a politically charged decision.
Abstract: This critique of the Supreme Court ruling in Bush
v. Gore establishes judicial and political contexts to ground a
critical reading of the text. It finds that a majority on the Court,
and some dissenters, violated their previously established realms
of legitimate linguistic possibilities to make their arguments. The
majority's rhetorical inconsistencies with their past rulings,
particularly those immediately preceding Bush v. Gore,
prevented consensus and attempted to rationalize a politically charged
decision. This study explains how the Court's credibility was damaged.
12 citations
Book•
01 Jan 1991
TL;DR: The Supreme Court: Policy Maker and Teacher as mentioned in this paper The Constitution in a Nutshell 3 Opinion Writing in the Supreme Court 4 The Legal Materials Used in Building a Constitutional Opinion 5 Tests, or Standards of Review 6 Precedent 7 Strategies of Justification 8 Understanding a Supreme Court Opinion Table of Cases
Abstract: Introduction 1 The Supreme Court: Policy Maker and Teacher 2 The Constitution in a Nutshell 3 Opinion Writing in the Supreme Court 4 The Legal Materials Used in Building a Constitutional Opinion 5 Tests, or Standards of Review 6 Precedent 7 Strategies of Justification 8 Understanding a Supreme Court Opinion Table of Cases
12 citations
TL;DR: The authors argue that the inability of the Court to anchor its reasoning solely in a deductive form of legal reasoning should encourage the CJ to engage in a more advanced "constitutional dialogue" with the EU's political institutions, and that truly understanding the Court's reasoning involves a closer analysis of the institutional and personal dynamics influencing Court decisions.
Abstract: This review essay analyses two significant recent contributions to the debate over the reasoning of the Court of Justice (CJ). These contributions highlight the impossibility of a wholly scientific and deductive approach to attributing ‘correct’ outcomes to the Court's case-law. At the same time, their analysis adds significant findings for the debate over the Court's possible ‘activist’ or political role. Following from these contributions, this essay makes two arguments: firstly, that the inability of the Court to anchor its reasoning solely in a deductive form of legal reasoning should encourage the CJ to engage in a more advanced ‘constitutional dialogue’ with the EU's political institutions; and secondly, that truly understanding the Court's reasoning involves a closer analysis of the institutional and personal dynamics influencing Court decisions. Understanding European judicial reasoning may require a closer look at the social and political—as well as doctrinal—context within which European judges act.
11 citations
TL;DR: This article examined the impact of the core linguistic resources at the Court's disposal by measuring the reliance on wording from parties' merits filings, amicus briefs, and from lower court opinions between the 2005 and 2014 Terms.
Abstract: The Supreme Court’s main output is the decision on the merits. Little is known, however, about how such decisions are constructed. This article is one of the first to look at the way Supreme Court opinions are constructed by examining the impact of the core linguistic resources at the Court’s disposal. It does so in a novel manner by measuring the Court's reliance on wording from parties' merits filings, amicus briefs, and from lower court opinions between the 2005 and 2014 Terms. To accomplish this goal, the article compares language in over 13,000 documents in the Court's docket during this period with their respective majority opinions. The article then looks at the relative impact of parties' briefs and filings, amicus curiae briefs, and lower court opinions on the Court's majority opinion language. This article provides both macro and micro level analyses by locating the relative effects of these linguistic resources on the Court's overall opinion language as well as by breaking these findings down by individual Justice. In the aggregate this article finds that of the three resources analyzed, the Court tends to use language from parties’ merits briefs most frequently, then wording from lower court’s opinions, and the least from amicus briefs, but that differences in case level factors shift the relative utility of each of these three resources.
11 citations
01 Jun 1967
TL;DR: Hennessy as mentioned in this paper pointed out that no matter whether the US constitution follows the flag or not, the US supreme coort follows the illiction returns, no matter the flag's position.
Abstract: "An' there ye have th' decision, Hinnissy, that's shaken th' intellicts iv th' nation to their very foundations, or will if they thry to read it. 'Tis all r-right. Look it over some time. 'Tis fine spoort if ye don't care f'r checkers. Some say it leaves th' flag up in th' air an' some say that's where it laves th' constitution. Annyhow, something's in th' air. But there's wan thing I'm sure about." "What's that?" asked Mr. Hennessy. "That is," said Mr. Dooley, "no matther whether th' constitution follows th' flag or not, th' supreme coort follows th' illiction returns." 1
11 citations